CTA Case No. 4243 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THH PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY ABUNDIA C. h.JLISTICO, PE:>ti tioner~ ~ Yf? r-c.;; u c.; C.T.A. CASE NO. 4243 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, HE�? ~.; pcmd e n t . i�~ ��- �-- - ���- M OOO -M -- �- - ,.. -�.. , DEC I s I 0 N RE.�s pon d t::~ n t. Comrn .i. ss ion r:-?r- o �f In tt-? rna 1 Revenue;>~ i n a motion �filed em Apr�-� .i l 2 9, 1988~ ~:;eeks the dismi ssal o f the petition for review on the ground j L.W .i ~:; cl i c t .ion � He contend s that the appeal is not cog ni :;u::\b l e by this CCJt l.rt s incf.:! th e assessment has not been protested nor con tested pursua nt to Section 3i9-A (now Section 270 ) of the Nation a l Intern a l Revenue Cod e; hence, there could not be any d ecisio n that may be appealable to this Court as co nt e mplatr=d in SE?.ct:..i.on 7( 1 ) o �f RE~ publi c Act No. 112 ~5. We ag ree with respondent. The pertinent facts as alleged in the pe tition for- r� eview di s c: lo ~s <? th .:~.t pc-'.! t.itioner� Abundia C. 71

- DECISIUI\l CTA CASE NO. 4 2 4 3 ..... ./"') �-" ,(. Polisti c o is of legal a g e, married, and a r es ident o �f Mahap 1 a g, l....e y t:.e a nd engag f"~d in th e ea t.er-y an d common carrier busi n ess at h er p l ace o f residence. On FE�br�uar�y .19BB, p et:L tio n er r�ece.i vt.~d the letter of Pedro C. Aguillon, Assistant Commi ssioner for Col l ection of respondent, d ated January 1 2, 1988 , requiring h er to pay the total a mount of P8.1 , 722.25 n::.> pr-e ~; �:m ting a ll eged cl r?.i' ic ie~nc:y income and pE?r-c:: E~ nt age t,:,:�: es �few the year�� 1.98 ~~;, including in crements t hereon. Said letter a l so indic ates the acceptabl e t:: :�:t.r-,':l._iuc:li c:.ia l sett. l e rm~ nt or compr�omise penalties in the tota l amount o f P450.00 for viol ation of certain Bookk ee ping Regulations. Whi.lf?. pet:.i t. .in n e t~ ave r�� s t ha t said deficien c y assess me n t is i l l ega l a nd u nw arranted I E:�:ec:u t.i. V7! 41, no r�:? c: on s i der-.:.~ t .ion re.i.nvestig,':l. t.ion of the aforementioned assessment was howev er made with n~spcmdent befor-e she appealed to t h is Cou r t on March lB , .19B8. Obviously, th e as !5 e s s men t n ot h a v ing been prot. e~:;ted or c:n n t.est.E~d, t hen~ cou ld not be a decision o n a di s pute d assessment that may be 72

DEC I S I 01\1 CTA CASE NO. 4 2 4 3 3 appealed to this Court. ( Candyman Incorporated vs. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue ~ CTA Case No. 18 7:'?. ~7anuary :::::o . .1970 .: The Philippine A111erican Life Insuran ce Company, .In c . vs. The Hon. CoMmissioner of Internal Revenue ~ CTA Ca se No � .:? �.~81 .� ,.Jun e 6 .� 19 8t��.: CoaJtlercial Bank of 11anila vs. The Coamissioner of Internal Revenue ~ CTA Case No . 4 CJ8 8 .� Ju.ly 16 .� 1987.) Und er Sec ti on 7(1 ) of R ~'? publ .i.c ( k t N o. 11. 2~i ~ v1h at i s n~v.i.~:?wable by th i s Court on ap p eal is the deci s ion of the Co mm ission er of '" dispute d assess ment . Thus~ i t has been h e ld: The l av.1 co n fe l~ r� .i. ng j t.tr .i. ~:; cl .i. c t. ion on thF! CotH"t.: of Tax App~ a l s i s found .i.n Sec t.icm 7 of Republic Act. 1125~ the pel'" t: inent pa1r� t. of ~'\lh.ich state~:; : 11 SE:C. 7. ~LtJr.),.~~.H .ct :io n The C~urt of Tax Appeals shall exe r cise e :�: c 1 u s .i 'If.~ �" p p el 1 at�~ j u r. i. sd .i c t .i em to r� eview by a pp eal as herein prov .ide d ..... II ( :L ) 1~. (.::.:to.r�. (now Cornm.i.ssicmer) of Internal Revenue in cases involving d .ispu ted asse~ssme n ts, r�E�funds of i n tel'T l c:::\ 1 r.. E~V E�? nu e t.a:-:t-!5 ~ fe�~�:; or o ther charges, penalties imposed in re 1 at: .i or1 t:. hf'? r� e~ to , or� other� rn a t t.e r�s a r .i.s.i.nq unde1~ th e Na t.i.cm<:l. l In t:er�na l Revenue Code or other l a w or part of law ad m.i.n .i.steH� ed by the Bureau of Int.er�nal F\t'?venue"; ~1 I' 73

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4243 -- 4 ���- The wnr�� d 11 Dec::i.s.i.n n S 11 .in p.:~r-<'"~ qr-aph l ~ ~3r:?.c t. .i.o n 7 of F\ r:?. pt..tbli c: ()c:t. .1. .1.:?:5 ~ quot c~ d c\bovf.�? ~ h ;:~~;; h r:�?Pn .in "b~ r��p l���ete cl t .o m~::.>a n thP rl~r: t? .t.9.D.f:5...J:l.of .... l.:_llJ?.. _c;~::'fl_l.f.T.] L!;;_c;o; i._o u ~.r: . . o �f. .. J. J:):t ~_,-:: r1 _91 . f\g~yqr:) t,J~ on ........ tt"l~? ..... P ~:::_gJ:;_E~S.t......P :f........ttlq ..J:..0>: p _C),yp.r: t .... <::\<J�~ tn5~.. J:..J":tf,:" ... ..:~?.~?t:~?.f:ifHPDt!::~. :�: :: :: II (Ernpi��l �'='~:; .i.s otu� s ); (Com11issioner of Interna l Revenue vs . Leonardo S. Villa and t h e Court of Ta x Appeal s, L. -�-�:? .3'":JSS. ,.January .?~ .1.9 6EJ .� 22 SCRA 3 . ) L.Jnd E��r- Sec t.i.nn :~:.1. 9 -- (..) ( nnv1 Sec t..i.nn :270) nf the N."'tion.':\ 1 Inter-n ."' l F\evenue Code~ 21 n assessment rn ay b r.~ p1��� o tested <:lc:l rn .i. n is t1�- a t i. Vf.:.> l y by f .i. 1 i nq .:�, r� c:~ques t 0 1'" v1.i. thin t h i r- ty (::;:o ) days �f,���nrn ,,-r:::~c::E~i pt of +:.hE:> c\~::.�:,{-~f:'; c.; rnf.::>nt:. ; o t hE?r� w .i. s;E> ~ .i. t hE,' C om f.�?!':; �f .i.n <':\ 1 ."'nd un '"' ppea 1 ab 1 E?. And t axpayer adverse l y affected b y the deci s ion on the pro t. e !5 t rna y �'=' p p r:.> ''" 1 to t .i���,E' Cnut-� t:. (J "f 1 a:-: f.) p p f.�?a l s w.i. thin th:i.r-ty ( 3 0 ) d .::ly!::; fr�� om n�?C::f.-?.i.pt nf thF:� said d ecision; oth e 1��� w i se ~ the-? dec: .is .ion sha l l become final~ executory a nd demandable. I t i s thus.; beyond doubt. thc:~t the deci sion o n the request "for recnns.iderat..i.on or re.i.n vest.i.gat.inn is t h e dec:.i. sinn nn the disputed assessment �hi.c h is ~'=' PPE0a lable to this Co u r t . Consequently~ i"f the :\SSf.0SS(llE�?rl t -1. o:� not. for-mally :::> conte s ted or protes ted adrnin.i.stra t .i.vely, as what 74

DEC I E3 I Uf\1 ... CTA CASE NO. 4 2 43 �- ~5 -�- happened in thE! c a~;e:~ a t b ,::\ J'.. , th :> ti'.\}:p.3y r~ r h o:IS no r-ight to appeal. IN VIEW OF THE FOHECiCl!i'~G, th e' petition for- review �filed in t.. hi s case:~ is hen�~by d is mi sse d for lack of jurisdic tion a t petitioner 's cos ts . f:l 0 m:~ DE::: r~ ED � Qu ezo n City ~ Metro Man i l a, Mar c h 29~ 1989. AMANTE F. F'n:::>s id .i.r J ,Jud q e WE CONCUn: ~. C . ROAQUI N ": .~ As soc: i <3. t .f?- ,:JLtdqe 75

~-� DF:C I H I 01\1 ..... CTA CASE NO. 4 2 4 3 -- 6 - CERT I F I CAT I 0 N I hereby certify that thi !:;; de c i si on was reac h ed after due con s ultation among the me mbers of t.he Cm.1r-�t �3c:c: orr.ian c:e wi t.h Section 1 3 , Art i c l e VIII of the Con s ti tuti o n . AMANTE ILLER F' r. P !5 .i. d i �1q ~~ u d q e Co ur t o f Tax Appeals 76